Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application petitioners have challenged Annexure-1, by which order has been issued to remove petitioners and others from service in compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the consequential order, as contained in Annexure-1/1, passed by the Executive Engineer by which petitioners have been removed from service. 3. From a bare perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the petitioners had been retained in service on daily wages after their removal. It is mentioned in Annexure-1 that petitioners had moved Labour Court in Reference Case No. 7 of 1993 and the Labour Court gave its award on 27.5.1997 in favour of the petitioners. The said award was challenged by the Department before this Court in writ application. It is further mentioned in Annexure-1 that the petitioners are equating their cases with that of Dilip Kumar Roy who had been regularised. Thereafter, order has been issued vide Annexure-1 to remove Dilip Kumar Roy as well as petitioners by complying the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, Consequential order with regard to the petitioners is contained in Annexure-1/1 dated 23.11.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that said Dilip Kumar Roy had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12996 of 2000. The said writ application was allowed by order dated 13.12.2004, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-18 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners. By this order, said order dated 17.11.2000, as contained in Annexure-1, was quashed by this Court in respect of Dilip Kumar Roy. It has not been brought on record that any appeal has been filed against the said order. It is further stated at the bar that the writ application filed by the Department against the award given by the Labour Court dated 27.5.1997 in favour of these petitioners stood dismissed for default on 22.7.2004. 5. In that view of the matter, there is no option left to this Court, than to quash Annexure-1 and Annexure-1/1 with respect to these petitioners. Accordingly, Annexures 1 and 1/1 are quashed. Respondents shall compare the case of the petitioners with that of Dilip Kumar Roy and if it is found that the cases of petitioners are similar to Dilip Kumar Roy, they shall give same benefits to the petitioners also. 6. Accordingly, Annexures 1 and 1/1 are quashed. Respondents shall compare the case of the petitioners with that of Dilip Kumar Roy and if it is found that the cases of petitioners are similar to Dilip Kumar Roy, they shall give same benefits to the petitioners also. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that large number of persons, similarly situated have been retained in service by the respondents and have been given accelerated promotion with all consequential benefits, whose names are contained in Annexures-16 and 19. 7. Respondents shall consider this aspect of the matter also and if identically situated persons have been retained in service and given consequential benefits of service, case of the petitioners shall also be considered for granting them same benefits. 8. It goes without saying that since the writ application filed by the Department has been dismissed for default, respondents are also obliged to implement the award given by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioners. 9. For the purpose of convenience, petitioners are given liberty to file representation before the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department enclosing all the relevant documents and papers in their favour with a copy of this order for expeditious consideration and disposal of their case. Respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in favour of petitioners after examining the facts as indicated above, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioners. 10. With, the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.